Sunday, March 10, 2013

Atheism is STUPID II

My last post, "Atheism is STUPID" has been such a success that I decided to follow up on it.

Atheism is often presented as a rational position. It is categorized as the "truth" that knocks down the "myths" and "fables" of religious belief. To the uneducated individual, atheism will be attractive. A person without proper understanding in areas such as philosophy, theology, and the sciences will fall for any chic argument presented by atheism.

Moreover, atheism is not united at all. The majority of atheists adhere to its ideals due to political persuasion. Most atheists classify themselves as Liberal or Progressive. One will rarely find a Conservative atheist who adhere to ideals such as the protection of all human life, the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage and the reality behind economics and how they affect all.

A tweet I received today reminded me of this disunity among atheists:

@sacerdotus even if he does you know full well atheism is a massive spectrum the only thing we share in common is a lack of belief in a god
— sam carpenter (@SamCarp20) March 10, 2013

This young man's tweet is incorrect in claiming that atheists share a common lack of belief in God. Atheists are known to hold all kinds of beliefs regarding God. Some claim that God does not exist at all. Others claim that God may exist but they are not convinced due to any apparent lack of evidence claims. There is no unity at all among atheists. This is because they lack Reflective Equilibrium. The term originates from American philosopher John Rawls. Reflective Equilibrium is the attempt of the individual to balance ideas in such a way that they become coherent. The individual takes on a deliberative process in which beliefs are accepted, rejected or blended with others. In Psychology, the equivalent of this can be Cognitive Dissonance.

Atheists cannot find common ground in their beliefs regarding the existence of God. They cannot find common ground on mostly everything. Take the blog feud regarding morality and science between Sam Harris and my former professor who I have much respect for, Massimo Pigluicci. Atheists often attempt to hide behind science believing it to be a safe haven for and promoter of atheism; however, science is no such thing. Science seeks knowledge. It tests questions and retests them. Unlike atheism, science does not reject hypotheses without testing and retesting them. Atheism right away concludes the non-existence of God. Science does not take this approach. This is why there is no science indicating that God does not exist. No scientific theories even hint at the non-existence of God. They exist to explain the mechanisms behind what is being studied, not the ultimate causality of them.

Atheist's will state that they do not know the origin of everything. A simple "I don't know" is a valid response; however, if atheism believes "I don't know" suffices in regards to causality, then on what ground is God ruled out? If one does not know what caused everything to exist, then how can one immediately rule God out of the equation? In the equation regarding causality, only two testable variables exist:

a. God is the cause: P(G ≥ .05) or P(G ≠ .05)

b. An unconscious agent is the cause: P(UCA ≥ .05) or P(UCA ≠ .05).

There is no middle ground in the equation.

The lack of Reflective Equilibrium kicks in here when atheists claim to not know the causal factor of everything while at the same time ruling God out. Atheism once again becomes "stupid" and irrational. Its attempt to hide behind science exposes it more to the world as a position that cannot stand on its own either, scientifically or philosophically.

It is no wonder why atheism has the lowest retention of any religion. After a while, atheism loses its luster and people grow out of it. Who in their right rational mind would adhere to such nonsensical rhetoric that presents itself as rational but is just diatribe meant to appease those who are contrarian?

He felt like he was getting dumber because your entire post relies on two points - both of which are misapplied.

1. "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence." You say: 'there is no science indicating that God does not exist. No scientific theories even hint at the non-existence of God.'This is true, but it doesn't prove that God exists. The whole point is that we can't DISPROVE him. Unfortunately, there's no evidence to PROVE he exists either (Google "Russel's Teapot", you'll learn a lot).

2. "Nothing can exist without something causing it to exist"I doubt the validity of this point [there's no inductive way to make such a claim, as we have never before encountered the creation or destruction of matter. So assuming it requires causality is a fallacy] - But I'm going to ASSUME that it's true, alright? So, things need something to cause them . . .Right, if GOD caused everything to exist, then what caused God to exist? Just like Russel's Teapot, this is an old argument, but it's validity stands . . .

If you think it's impossible to claim the universe's existence without a causal trigger, I counter that it's un-THINKABLE to explain God's existence without a causal trigger of greater magnitude.

But just because I'm in a good mood, let's PRETEND that Gods can create themselves, or always exist (don't argue, this is a hypothetical thought experiment). Let's suppose that Gods CAN come from nothing, and then cause universes to exist . . .

How do you know that the God that created this universe is the one that you pray to? How do you know that it's not some other religion's God? Maybe Tao is right or Islam or Protestantism or Pastafarianism - even if, by some fluke, you can explain that our universe was created; that it was created by a god & that said God was created from nothing - how can you guarantee that it's YOUR God?

1. "This is true, but it doesn't prove that God exists. The whole point is that we can't DISPROVE him." You have basically agreed with my post. Atheism is stupid in that it posits the non-existence of a being that cannot be disproved. Try to make sense of that. How can you say someone does not exist when you cannot disprove that someone? Citing "Russell's teapot" only shows that you do not grasp ontology. I have refuted that analogy on many atheist blogs. I suggest you google Sacerdotus and teapot. A future post on it will be be posted where I will dissect the teapot thought experiment.

2. Everything that exists, began at some point. This is basic logic and scientific knowledge. It is called the law of causality. Matter is created and destroyed on a daily basis. Where do you get the suggestion that it is not? At colliders throughout the world, the same is happening at the particulate level. There is no evidence that the universe was already existing undisturbed. We do have evidence that the universe had a beginning.

The question "What caused God to exist?" is fallacious because it does not take into account that God is not a part of the universe. Space, time, matter and energy only exist within this universe. God is not subject to its parameters whether spatial or temporal. Therefore, God cannot have a cause. He is outside of space and time as we know it and are bound by them. The human mind can only try to make sense of the laws of physics that we know exist in this universe. We cannot apply those laws to anything outside of it.

In light of this, it is un-THINKABLE to apply those laws to God. Only we have a cause and an end because we exist within the laws of physics of this universe.

"1. "This is true, but it doesn't prove that God exists. The whole point is that we can't DISPROVE him." You have basically agreed with my post. Atheism is stupid in that it posits the non-existence of a being that cannot be disproved. Try to make sense of that. How can you say someone does not exist when you cannot disprove that someone?"

This part of your statement is incredibly hypocritical, you are saying that atheism is stupid as there is no evidence a god does not exist while saying believing in a god is not stupid (admittedly not directly in them words though a lot of what you say on your blog does basically say that). However by your own logic then belief in a god in the way Christians (and most other religions) do is just as stupid. The claim that a god exists is an unfalsifiable claim as such it can not be proved or disproved, so you can not 100% know for sure that god exists yet a large portion of theists would claim to.

There is also no science proving that life on earth was not inseminated by space squids. If something doesn't exist, how is it that you expect it to provide evidence for its nonexistence? If it does not interact with the physical world, it will leave no evidence of any kind.

A claim made without evidence cab be dismissed without evidence. Hence the, I'm sure, quick dismissal of space squids.

Furthermore, not knowing the causality for something does not open up a slot for god to be forced into the equation. Were that the case, any other supernatural force could also fit that slot: witchcraft, the flying spaghetti monster, Vishnu, space squids, all would be equally suited to fulfilling that role.

There is also no science proving that life on earth was not inseminated by space squids. If something doesn't exist, how is it that you expect it to provide evidence for its nonexistence? If it does not interact with the physical world, it will leave no evidence of any kind.

A claim made without evidence cab be dismissed without evidence. Hence the, I'm sure, quick dismissal of space squids.

Furthermore, not knowing the causality for something does not open up a slot for god to be forced into the equation. Were that the case, any other supernatural force could also fit that slot: witchcraft, the flying spaghetti monster, Vishnu, space squids, all would be equally suited to fulfilling that role.

Well the issue here is that you are assuming it does not exist. This is what you have to focus on. Why and how did you come about with this conclusion? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. By you logic, physicists would have never bothered looking for the Higgs Boson. Not knowing the causality for something does not close the door to God either especially when the majority of human beings believe in God. The causal factor of everything must not have an origin. The things you listed have a origin.

You start with an interesting, but semantic, point that atheism isn't a religion so they don't all think the same. Then you move into saying the universe was created, or had a cause, which doesn't work because that implies there is a time before the universe when time is inside the universe.

You start with an interesting, but semantic, point that atheism isn't a religion so they don't all think the same. Then you move into saying the universe was created, or had a cause, which doesn't work because that implies there is a time before the universe when time is inside the universe.

The problem is that religion requires the followers to believe without any proof or evidence whatsoever.

At the moment, there is no way to prove either way. So why rule out God? You could ask why do you rule out the absence of one? Was the origin of the universe the consequence of some law of physics still unknown (and potentiolly forever unknown), or due to a magical being?Even then, where does that magical being comes from? Conjuring God to explain the creation of all things is just kicking the ball in the long grass. It doesn't even try to explain anything.

If you claim there is something, the burden of proof is on you.There's a leprechaun who can cure cancer with his tears living in my basement. I can't prove it to you, but hey, the absence of evidence doesn't mean the evidence of absence, does it? The likelyhood is that you will not believe me based on the probability of your past experiences and general knowledge. Since times immemorials, Man has used God to explain what he doesn't understand: lightning, diseases, earthquakes, eclipses, etc...The more he looked, the more he realised that there is no need for God to explain all that.The Big Bang and why it happened (IF it happened, it could still be disproved), MIGHT be caused by a God... or not.The thing is that we've found that the probability of needing a God to explain something unexplainable has dramatically decreased.

But wait a second... You mentionned in your previous article that "for centuries philosophers, religious thinkers and scientists have offered all kinds of proof for the existence of God.". Could you please indicate which proof you refer to? I would be very interested to review them for myself.And if there are proofs, why do you even talk of the absence of evidences here? Surely, you would point us to those to enlighten us.

"It is no wonder why atheism has the lowest retention of any religion." Since when is atheism a religion? Also, where are the facts backing this statement? Most statistics I've seen show a steady decline of church goers (please find some links from religious affiliated sites, so you don't accused me of bias: http://www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php, http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/church/stats/iss_church_stats_attendance.asp, http://www.readthespirit.com/ourvalues/us-churches-is-attendance-up-or-down/).Also, there seems to be a rise in atheism (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-13/national/35491519_1_new-atheism-atheist-groups-new-atheists, http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2012/05/30/is-atheism-increasing-at-the-expense-of-theism/).

Finally, you believe in your one true God, disregarding any other religion as mere paganism. You don't believe in the myriads of gods that were there before the Bible was even written. Atheists do the same thing, they just go one god further.

The assertion that religion requires followers to believe without any proof or evidence is just not true. I can only speak for Catholicism and can state that we have always provided evidence for God via logical arguments and tangible evidence such as historical artifacts and scientifically documented miracles. The Catholic Church makes it a top priority to use the sciences to rule out natural phenomenon.

The problem is not proving God, but the filtering of this proof. Atheists will always deny whatever is presented to them. This is why atheism is not taken serious. It is just a contrarian position seeking to offer the contrary to any proofs presented. The universe could not have been created by an unknown law because the laws of physics came into existence right after the "Big Bang." Before it, there were no laws. Furthermore, laws need a lawgiver. Laws cannot formulate themselves whether they are conceptual or mathematical.

No one has conjured God as an explanation. God has always been there since before creation. God Himself revealed Himself to man. Moreover, we all are genetically predisposed to belief in God and the supernatural. This gene VMAT2 does not make sense due to the fact that genes deal with the natural circumstance of man. So why have a gene dedicated to the supernatural?

The burden of proof falls on anyone making any claim, including the claim that God does not exist or is not possible. If you claim that there is no God, you will have to answer why. Your premise is not enough.

Nothing in science suggests that God as the cause of all has dramatically decreased. On the contrary, the more we study physics, the more we see the design present in the construction of this universe. See my other blog posts as I expound on this more.

Greek philosophers, African philosophers, and modern philosophers have always pondered the question of the Logos. From Plato to Aquinas and even Craig who atheists cannot win in debates; philosophers have always provided arguments for a supreme logos or order that is conscious and runs the universe as a mechanism. Proofs in science are found in physics, biology and other sciences. There are countless books available presenting these proofs. Information theory is one that is offered as proof of a Divine mind behind the organization of space, time and matter.

Atheism is seen as a religion for many reasons. They even have chaplains. Courts have even ruled that atheism is a religion after atheists themselves complained that they were not given the same respect as traditional faiths. Church attendance fluctuates every decade. Catholicism has actually grown under Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Islam continues to be a force that is growing as well. Atheist is not really on the rise. The reality is that it is becoming more open.

God is God for every one. The myriads of god designations on Earth are man's attempt to define the One God.

A very rational and effective critique of your blog by Christophe, I await your response. By the way, if you're going to accuse people of being uneducated, you may want to learn the difference between atheists and atheist's.

Well just saying, the correct term for a person that is unsure of the existence of God follows the views of Agnosticism not Atheism. If you think that this is false then please look it up. Since Agnosticism =/= Atheism part of your argument against Atheism should be revised as it says that Atheists are not united by a lack of faith in the supernatural.

Support the Ministry

Comments

Thank you for reading and for your comment. Please be patient if you posted a comment. Spammers and other people who hide under "anonymous" sometimes post vulgar or nonsensical comments that I cannot post for obvious reasons. If your comment pertains to the posting and is free of ad hominem and vulgarity, rest assured it will be posted.